Talk:Pitch (music)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Stub

Sorry for the cheesy stub, man. --Ed Poor

Hey, I'm just glad somebody finally started the article - I'd been meaning to do it for ages, but kept putting it off. I guess my "yuck" comment in the edit summary was largly an expression of my thoughts on having to finally face up to this subject! I'll expand this quite a bit when I can get to my books. I want to write about how pitch standards have changed over time - the A above middle C was only fixed at 440Hz in 1920 or something. Before then there are stories about orchestras constantly pushing up their pitch in order to sound louder and brighter than their rivals, and singers complaining about it because they had to keep singing higher and higher. It's quite an entertaining subject really. --Camembert

Yeah, personally I prefer A=435... --Ed Poor

[edit] Historical standards

I've added some stuff about historical pitch standards now, but it's only half the story, and I'm not sure about some of the ISO related dates - it needs a certain amount of checking, and probably rewriting. --Camembert

[edit] Orchestra tuning

From the article:

In practice, as orchestras still tune to a note given out by the oboe, rather than to an electronic tuning device (which would be more reliable), and as the oboist himself may not have used such a device to tune in the first place, there is still some variance in the exact pitch used.

- That's got to keep the pianist busy, then.

Well of course, when an orchestra is playing with a piano, they should tune to the piano (the same ought to be the case when fixed-pitch percussion like the glockenspiel or xylophone is used, but I know from experience that it isn't always). And even pianos are not consistently tuned to A=440 - I read somewhere that in Eastern Europe in particular, they tend to be more like A=444. I'll try to stick something like this in the article if nobody else does. --Camembert

[edit] String diameter

The statement, "Pitch can be adjusted by varying the diameter of the string" is true, but I think misleading. The fundamental physical property being adjusted when the diameter is adjusted is the string density (mass per unit length). Consider that the pitch can be adjusted while keeping the diameter the same by changing the type of material the string is made out of to one with a different density.

Thus, I suggest that density, not diameter, be identified along with length and tension as the variables that control string pitch.

-- Ben Denckla

The couldn't same then could be said of length? That what your actually changing is the unit length while the mass stays the same? Hmm, you could change the mass without changing the diameter, so that may indeed be the primary consideration. I don't know, I added "diameter" to the article but only to replace "thickness".Hyacinth 08:40, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Concert pitch

Concert pitch is not the same as pitch and I believe that it shouldn't redirect to here. Concert pitch refers to instruments that produce notes which sound the same as they are written such as the piano, as opposed to transposing instruments such as trumpets. NigelHorne 12:45, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Pure tone

"We can state that the note A above middle C played on any instrument gives the same pitch perception as the pure tone at 440Hz, which has exactly defined frequency."

Isn't part of what allows pitch identification the overtones of harmonic sounds. For sounds with inharmonic spectra, or no spectra, it is harder to perceive and correctly label the fundamental. Hyacinth 19:52, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Octave designation

Isn't A = 440 also called A4? Can we have a little discussion about the octave numbers? C#5, D3, etc. - Omegatron 02:33, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Here is a little explanation: http://www.music.vt.edu/musicdictionary/appendix/octaveregisters/octaveregisters.html - Omegatron 03:20, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] diameter and tension

"Pitch can be adjusted by varying the diameter of the string. A thicker string will result in a lower pitch. A thinner string will result in a higher pitch.

Pitch can be adjusted by varying the tension of the string. A string with less tension (looser) will result in a lower pitch, while a string with greater tension (tighter) will result in a higher pitch."

anyone know the mathematical relationship for these two? - Omegatron 03:26, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

found it myself. - Omegatron 16:24, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] World Wide Standard

I thought it is worth mentioning that not only Pianos but Entire Orchestras are starting to tune higher and higher in much of Europe. I am studying Voice in college and am finding that even many Conductors, mainly European in Origin, in places all over the world are starting to tune their orchestras up a little to give them a "brighter" sound. It should also be noted that as the "A" is rasied above 440, the distance between each note also increases, making tunning an ensamble a little bit easier. Infact, the only real downside of tunning up a little from 440 is that it is harder on the vocalists to reach higher and higher notes. ~Paul

[edit] Tuning

A444 is superb as a starting point- drop down two octaves and find A111.

Please Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. Hyacinth 17:46, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] correction

In the line about atonalism I found this:

"for example, C# and Db are the same pitch while C4 and C5 are functionally the same"

Shouldn't it be "C4 and C5 are functionally different"? -Robin Wenger

See pitch class. Hyacinth 17:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

Excellent section on historical pitch standards. If the rest of the article reads like this (which I don't know as I haven't read it), then this could be a Featured Article. --P3d0 15:57, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

But this is all a bit euro-centric. Medieval Chinese cultures had state-defined reference pitches, the so-called "yeallow bells".

[edit] pitch shifter

pitch shifter / pitch shifting is missing right now in the article. --Abdull 10:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Helmholtz

The sentence "Readers should also refer to Helmholtz: 'On the sensation of tone'" appears twice in the same section, plus there is the issue that there is an actual reference at the end of the article. I am unsure of the best way to edit this section. Should one of the redundant sentences be kept, or should both be removed and a footnote added to the text, directing the reader to the reference material? --psu256 16:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

There should be a discussion (or link) about the Helmholtz music notation (c' indicates middle c, c indicates the octave below middle c, etc.) --Mage 03:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diameter of string and pitch

I was not aware that the diameter of a string (independent of its mass per unit length) affected the pitch. Does anyone have any references to this new (to me) revelation?--Light current 02:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

rm from article pending references to this phenomenon:

[edit] Diameter

Pitch can be adjusted by varying the diameter of the string. A thicker string will result in a lower pitch. A thinner string will result in a higher pitch. The change in pitch is inversely proportional to the change in diameter:

f \propto {1 \over d}

--Light current 02:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

How about [1]? Surely you've noticed that lower-pitched strings, such as on the bass viol and low notes on the piano, have thicker strings than guitar or violin strings? Arguably, as in [2], it's the density per unit length, rather than the diameter per se, which affects the frequency. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The reason that low pitch strings are thicker is purely to give them greater mass/unit length. The thickness of the string has no effect whatsoever on the frequency or pitch. Your first reference is wrong. I quote from 'A Textbook of Sound', by A.B.Wood D.Sc, F.Inst.P (British Admiralty Research Labs), Publ:Bell, 3rd Ed 1955 (No ISBN found):

frequency = [sqrt(T/m)]/2l

where T is tension, m is mass per unit length, and l is the length. Notice that thickness is not included in this (or any) equation relating to frequency of vibrating strings.--Light current 03:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vibrating strings- do we need them here?

Do we need to keep this section on vibrating strings in the article. After all, no other sound production methods are included. I suggest its removed to somewhere else!/.

Possibly, but the vibrating string, in the form of a monochord, is the traditional way (in Western theory, at least) to explain pitch relationships. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Perception

Simliar to what I have said about color perception, wouldn't it be wrong to say:

In music, pitch is the perception of the frequency of a note.

as this seems more a definition of hearing than pitch?

It seems that pitch might be better described as the frequency of a note (or sound), and that ear's ability to perceive the frequency is how we hear pitch. You could not correctly say that if a note were not perceived it would have no pitch. Similarly the perception of a note does not give it its frequency. -134.250.72.125 05:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree, although there's no great consistency by music theorists on this terminology. I believe the pitch is the perception only; if no one hears it, there is no pitch. The frequency is, however, present if no one listens. Frequency is a scientific measurement, an objective measure, whereas pitch is a perceived meaning of a note. Two notes with frequency 440 and 441 are perceived as the same pitch, because pitch derives from the discriminating ability of the ear. Not all music theorists define the terms in this way, but this is a common way. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I think if one reads this article this issue is quickly cleared up. Hyacinth 08:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Obviously you didn't notice this edit, Hyacinth. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I have yet to figure out how one could edit an article without reading it, but that appears to be the case quite often, as it does here. Hyacinth 09:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ogg files

I just listened to 439Hz.ogg and Sine_wave_440.ogg, and could swear that 439Hz.ogg was actually higher in tone than 440.ogg. In fact, I'd guess that (provided 440 was actually 440) that 439Hz.ogg was around 443 or 444hz. Is it possible that the person who did the encoding introduced some artifacts from the compression, or the source file was suspect to begin with?

Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth 21:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing introduction

I added Template:confusing to the one sentence introduction. I think it should explain what that means in a paragraph. Hyacinth 11:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course it should. I've taken a stab at it; while I expect what I wrote to be changed, I think it's a better starting point. If anyone reading this wants to edit it further, remember: be clear, don't weasel. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing sentence

From the article:

"The note A above middle C played on any instrument is perceived to be of the same pitch as a pure tone of 440 Hz, but does not necessarily contain a partial having that frequency."

If "partial" is supposed to mean a harmonic, or overtone, then why would it? 440 Hz is the fundamental frequency isn't it? I don't understand what this sentence is trying to say. Matt 11:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Another confusing sentence

From the article:

"Pitch is the perceived fundamental frequency of a sound... The human auditory perception system may also have trouble distinguishing pitch differences between notes under certain circumstances."

This doesn't make sense. If pitch is to be defined as the perceived frequency (which I'm not sure I agree with), then if no pitch difference can be distinguished there is no pitch difference. Matt 11:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

You're right. It should be "...trouble distinguishing frequency differences...". Please change it. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/i/t/Talk%7EPitch_%28music%29_e771.html"